Thunderf00t has lost last of his marbles and remaining bits of credibility

[fourfathom]

Nobody (that I have seen) has likened Musk to Hitler in the thread, that's entirely in your imagination.[/color][/font][/b]

Well. except for the "salute" thing (posts deleted?),  which I think is evidence that some people will twist anything to the point where it aligns with what they want to believe.  Stupid.  But human nature.
As for Tfoot, I've tried to watch a couple of his recent videos and I can't stomach more than a minute or two.  Not my cup of tea, and I've got better things to do with my time.

[Refrigerator]

Nobody (that I have seen) has likened Musk to Hitler in the thread, that's entirely in your imagination.[/color][/font][/b]

Well. except for the "salute" thing (posts deleted?),  which I think is evidence that some people will twist anything to the point where it aligns with what they want to believe.  Stupid.  But human nature.
As for Tfoot, I've tried to watch a couple of his recent videos and I can't stomach more than a minute or two.  Not my cup of tea, and I've got better things to do with my time.

His science videos were really good, but have become increasingly rare to a point where the channel is not worth following for me personally.

[EEVblog]

His science videos were really good, but have become increasingly rare to a point where the channel is not worth following for me personally.

I only takes a few seconds to notice if a new video that pops up is one you're interested in or not, so IMO, not worth unsubscribing for that reason.

[wraper]

His science videos were really good, but have become increasingly rare to a point where the channel is not worth following for me personally.

I only takes a few seconds to notice if a new video that pops up is one you're interested in or not, so IMO, not worth unsubscribing for that reason.

From Thunderf00t's track record I suspect you'll need to wait from a few years to forever to see another science video on his channel.

[EEVblog]

From Thunderf00t's track record I suspect you'll need to wait from a few years to forever to see another science video on his channel.

I hope not, but yeah. I'll settle for a nice debunking video that's not Musk related.

[rx8pilot]

I hope not, but yeah. I'll settle for a nice debunking video that's not Musk related.

At least the Crazy Musk content has turned out to be largely accurate. Not sure why Mr. foot dedicates such enormous personal resources to the topic, however. He feeds the musk cultists more than anything.

[coppercone2]

I think hes gonna be busy for a while lmfao

https://autos.yahoo.com/latest-starship-explosion-trashes-poor-133000969.html

something about how that rocket ends up looking makes it all the funnier, because its like a barn silo



I am waiting for the first space-x car, when philipinos use 'salvage' to fix a car some how. Can those body tiles be used as break pads to help fix up a old army jeep? It could end up looking like a 1950's comic book there.

Also, screwing over island people is the American (particularly navy) way. The history of the distant pacific and the USA is really grim, I stumbled into that once thinking it might be relaxing but nope

[wraper]

I hope not, but yeah. I'll settle for a nice debunking video that's not Musk related.

At least the Crazy Musk content has turned out to be largely accurate. Not sure why Mr. foot dedicates such enormous personal resources to the topic, however. He feeds the musk cultists more than anything.

Call Musk crazy, he probably is. However, Thunderf00t's content about him is very inaccurate and often totally nonsensical from what I've endured watching. There is way more childish and condescending ridicule and name calling than actual research, which is usually very inaccurate and far-fetched too.

[AVGresponding]

I hope not, but yeah. I'll settle for a nice debunking video that's not Musk related.

At least the Crazy Musk content has turned out to be largely accurate. Not sure why Mr. foot dedicates such enormous personal resources to the topic, however. He feeds the musk cultists more than anything.

Call Musk crazy, he probably is. However, Thunderf00t's content about him is very inaccurate and often totally nonsensical from what I've endured watching. There is way more childish and condescending ridicule and name calling than actual research, which is usually very inaccurate and far-fetched too.

Please provide evidence of false claims.

[tszaboo]

I hope not, but yeah. I'll settle for a nice debunking video that's not Musk related.

At least the Crazy Musk content has turned out to be largely accurate. Not sure why Mr. foot dedicates such enormous personal resources to the topic, however. He feeds the musk cultists more than anything.

Call Musk crazy, he probably is. However, Thunderf00t's content about him is very inaccurate and often totally nonsensical from what I've endured watching. There is way more childish and condescending ridicule and name calling than actual research, which is usually very inaccurate and far-fetched too.

Please provide evidence of false claims.

[wraper]

^I gave an example in this thread already:

BTW annual CO₂ emissions are 37.4 billion tonnes. TF must be consuming quite potent magic mushrooms to come up with SpaceX emitting twice of that. Starship with booster holds about 1500 1030 tonnes of methane, which results in about 5800 4000 tonnes of CO₂ if fueled to the brink (suborbital flights should require less). Which means SpaceX needs to do ~13 18.9 million Starship flights a year (35.6 51.7 thousand a day) to get ~75 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions. What an obsessed dumbass you must be to make such an error while having PHD in chemistry
EDIT: I somehow got methane amount larger than it is. It's 1030 tonnes, not 1500. So it's even more insane.

^And that considering SpaceX/Musk never even claimed to target short distance flights.
As of name calling and condescending ridicule, just start watching any of his videos, especially some of the latest. Not to say his videos consist by 95% of rehash of older videos which are endless condescending blabber by themselves.

[EEVblog]

^And that considering SpaceX/Musk never even claimed to target short distance flights.

They did. The CEO Gwynne Shotwell taked endelssley about how Starship Point-to-Point on earth was going to be a huge thing, and guaranteed it would happen.
And Musk hyped it multiple times as well.
Batshit crazy.

As for the carbon footprint TF calculated, I assume that it was assuming Starship point to point would be as a popular as airplanes with the same volume of passengers.
Basically, taking their hyperbole and calculating the resulting hyperbole. A common technique of debunkers, myself included.

[wraper]

^And that considering SpaceX/Musk never even claimed to target short distance flights.

They did. The CEO Gwynne Shotwell taked endelssley about how Starship Point-to-Point on earth was going to be a huge thing, and guaranteed it would happen.
And Musk hyped it multiple times as well.
Batshit crazy.

Did you miss short distance? Where did she say it's for all/short distance flights? There is virtually no benefit to compete with 1-2 hour flights which are the majority. First video shows long distance flights only. I watched the second video in the past and do not recall her claiming anything like that. Quickly scrolled through it, at 15 minutes she actually talks about quick flights over half the globe. So far I see no evidence to consider it as anything but as TF debunking strawman he pulled out of one's butt. Supposedly SpaceX will destroy the earth by doing what they never said to be intending to do.

[wilfred]

I hope not, but yeah. I'll settle for a nice debunking video that's not Musk related.

At least the Crazy Musk content has turned out to be largely accurate. Not sure why Mr. foot dedicates such enormous personal resources to the topic, however. He feeds the musk cultists more than anything.

He obviously thinks there is sufficient benefit in return. You say his videos are accurate. Others say inaccurate. I don't watch them. If the benefit was money from more views then it doesn't matter either way. And that's what I'm going with. But he might just be a zealot.

[EEVblog]

^And that considering SpaceX/Musk never even claimed to target short distance flights.

They did. The CEO Gwynne Shotwell taked endelssley about how Starship Point-to-Point on earth was going to be a huge thing, and guaranteed it would happen.
And Musk hyped it multiple times as well.
Batshit crazy.

Did you miss short distance? Where did she say it's for all/short distance flights? There is virtually no benefit to compete with 1-2 hour flights which are the majority. First video shows long distance flights only. I watched the second video in the past and do not recall her claiming anything like that. Quickly scrolled through it, at 15 minutes she actually talks about quick flights over half the globe. So far I see no evidence to consider it as anything but as TF debunking strawman he pulled out of one's butt. Supposedly SpaceX will destroy the earth by doing what they never said to be intending to do.

Ok, not "short distance" flights, I read that as just point-to-point. But unless you go back an research exactly what calcs he did and why, you don't know, maybe he was talking about long distance flights that were targetted by Starship point-point?

The point is as I explained, it's comon for debunkers to use hyperbole to debunk hyperbole. If you want to debate the exact details of the hyperbole go right ahead, but it's akin to fighting with the preverbial "pig in mud".
Starship commercial passenger point-to-point remains one of the stupidest ideas in history.

[wraper]

Ok, not "short distance" flights, I read that as just point-to-point. But unless you go back an research exactly what calcs he did and why, you don't know, maybe he was talking about long distance flights that were targetted by Starship point-point?

The point is as I explained, it's comon for debunkers to use hyperbole to debunk hyperbole. If you want to debate the exact details of the hyperbole go right ahead, but it's akin to fighting with the preverbial "pig in mud".
Starship commercial passenger point-to-point remains one of the stupidest ideas in history.

His claim would make sense only if starship was to replace every single passenger airplane flight, large and small, on any distance. The maximal reasonable hyperbole would be if he assumed Starship was to replace every long distance flight. Also I wouldn't call it stupid, extremely hard to achieve, yes, but not impossible. And it would be a game changer in long distance travel if actually made to work. Don't forget just a decade ago rocket launch industry was laughing about Musk's attempts to land a F9 booster. But now cozy times are gone, and good old boys fight for survival instead.
Here is a video from 2013 where Ariane's Richard Bowles on Singapore Satellite Industry Forum says SpaceX is selling a dream about rocket reuse and at 15:30 laughs there's room only for around 25 satellites per year (last year SpaceX alone did more than 5x more rocket launces, most of which contained 20+ Starlink sattelites).
https://web.archive.org/web/20170328025906/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ-7nNw-04Q&google_comment_id=z12fwdq4rt2kzjftz22nz53rrwjgsfgkv
Tunderf00t debunked and ridiculed Starlink too. But now it has more than 2 times more customers than all Satellite internet providers ever had combined.

[EEVblog]

His claim would make sense only if starship was to replace every single passenger airplane flight, large and small, on any distance. The maximal reasonable hyperbole would be if he assumed Starship was to replace every long distance flight. Also I wouldn't call it stupid, extremely hard to achieve, yes, but not impossible. And is a game changer in long distance travel if actually made to work.

Aaaaand here we go.
Solar roadways works, just like Starship point to point can work, no doubt about it.
Is it just as impractically stupid, yes.

Tunderf00t debunked and ridiculed Starlink too. But now it has more than 2 times more customers than all Satellite internet providers ever had combined.

He debunked the profitability of Starlink. That actually remains to be seen.
It may very well turn out that, as awesome as Starlink is technically, and as game changing as it is for so many people, it may not actually be a profitable endevour. And that's my current position BTW, as I've discussed on The Amp Hour several times now. FWIT, I don't partically like TF's Starlink debunking videos, I don't think he gives ample credit to how game changing it is.

[wraper]

His claim would make sense only if starship was to replace every single passenger airplane flight, large and small, on any distance. The maximal reasonable hyperbole would be if he assumed Starship was to replace every long distance flight. Also I wouldn't call it stupid, extremely hard to achieve, yes, but not impossible. And is a game changer in long distance travel if actually made to work.

Aaaaand here we go.
Solar roadways works, just like Starship point to point can work, no doubt about it.
Is it just as impractically stupid, yes.

Poor analogy. It's like if solar roadways would aim to replace all energy production in the world. The thing is not about it working or not. It's that SpaceX never claimed Starship would replace whole aviation industry, but TF acts as if it did, therefore it will destroy earth. He simply debunks a lie he came up with himself, very convenient.

He debunked the profitability of Starlink. That actually remains to be seen.

It's already profitable.

[EEVblog]

Poor analogy. It's like if solar roadways would aim to replace all energy production in the world. The thing is not about it working or not. It's that SpaceX never claimed Starship would replace whole aviation industry, but TF acts as if it did

They seemed pretty confident it would revolutionise the entire long haul flight industry at least.
There isn't anyone who likes flying for 24 hours to get from one side of the planet to the other.

He debunked the profitability of Starlink. That actually remains to be seen.

It's already profitable.[/quote]

Link to the data. And real data, not just an article that says it's probably hit profitability based on some industry insight, because I know that exists.
But fact is you don't know, you can't know, because not only is SpaceX a private company, you have no idea how they have amortised the development of it and Starship, which is apparently critical to the long term success of the system.

[Psi]

Starlink definitely has the potential to be very profitable.
To get to that point I think they will need:

- A working and reusable starship to lower launch costs. Since they have to keep replacing the sats. They only last 5 years or so from memory. And also to launch the bigger V2 sats.

- Worldwide customers/ISPs paying them for cellular connectivity in areas with no cell service.

Both of those things are very much underway already.

At this point I think they're more likely to succeed at it than to fail.

[EEVblog]

Starlink definitely has the potential to be very profitable.
To get to that point I think they will need:
- A working and reusable starship to lower launch costs. Since they have to keep replacing the sats. They only last 5 years or so from memory. And also to launch the bigger V2 sats.
- Worldwide customers/ISPs paying them for cellular connectivity in areas with no cell service.
Both of those things are very much underway already.
At this point I think they're more likely to succeed at it than to fail.

Agreed.
Still possible the market just isn't big enough to be genuinely profitable when it all comes out of the wash.
It's fairly easy to massage the numbers to show profitability, especially with a company that doesn't do just that thing.
Having said that, it's also possible to have a business entitiy of a larger organisation that isn't technically profitable be successful for a long time.
I suspect we'll never know the true numbers. And anyone who claims they have them is BS.

[jnk0le]

Some funding comes from the military.
And we have already seen it used for such purposes.

[EEVblog]

Some funding comes from the military.
And we have already seen it used for such purposes.

That alone is enough to keep the whole show going, and "profitable". Even if the economics of the commercial solution aren't there.
Even if SpaceX went public and the books get opened up more, it's not hard to lump them both under "Starlink" and, bamn, profitable thanks to Uncle Sam.

Reminds me of the hardware group I was in at Altium, it hemoraged cash, but the shareholders never knew because there was no obligation on Altiums part to report it so.

[AVGresponding]

^I gave an example in this thread already:

BTW annual CO₂ emissions are 37.4 billion tonnes. TF must be consuming quite potent magic mushrooms to come up with SpaceX emitting twice of that. Starship with booster holds about 1500 1030 tonnes of methane, which results in about 5800 4000 tonnes of CO₂ if fueled to the brink (suborbital flights should require less). Which means SpaceX needs to do ~13 18.9 million Starship flights a year (35.6 51.7 thousand a day) to get ~75 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions. What an obsessed dumbass you must be to make such an error while having PHD in chemistry
EDIT: I somehow got methane amount larger than it is. It's 1030 tonnes, not 1500. So it's even more insane.

^And that considering SpaceX/Musk never even claimed to target short distance flights.
As of name calling and condescending ridicule, just start watching any of his videos, especially some of the latest. Not to say his videos consist by 95% of rehash of older videos which are endless condescending blabber by themselves.

Ah, that one. No surprise you're taking that completely out of context; iirc that was the theoretical emissions if SpaceX reached Musk/Shotwell's nebulous "goals" of replacing aircraft with P2P flights in Falcon 9's or somesuch. It was deliberate hyperbole to point out the ludicrous nature of their apparent intentions. You really are either very stupid or very deceitful.

[wraper]

^I gave an example in this thread already:

BTW annual CO₂ emissions are 37.4 billion tonnes. TF must be consuming quite potent magic mushrooms to come up with SpaceX emitting twice of that. Starship with booster holds about 1500 1030 tonnes of methane, which results in about 5800 4000 tonnes of CO₂ if fueled to the brink (suborbital flights should require less). Which means SpaceX needs to do ~13 18.9 million Starship flights a year (35.6 51.7 thousand a day) to get ~75 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions. What an obsessed dumbass you must be to make such an error while having PHD in chemistry
EDIT: I somehow got methane amount larger than it is. It's 1030 tonnes, not 1500. So it's even more insane.

^And that considering SpaceX/Musk never even claimed to target short distance flights.
As of name calling and condescending ridicule, just start watching any of his videos, especially some of the latest. Not to say his videos consist by 95% of rehash of older videos which are endless condescending blabber by themselves.

Ah, that one. No surprise you're taking that completely out of context; iirc that was the theoretical emissions if SpaceX reached Musk/Shotwell's nebulous "goals" of replacing aircraft with P2P flights in Falcon 9's or somesuch. It was deliberate hyperbole to point out the ludicrous nature of their apparent intentions. You really are either very stupid or very deceitful.

How about you watch it yourself at 11 minutes? Thunderf00t literally says SpaceX's plan is to destroy Earth. Gwynne Shotwell: Starship could fly 10x more frequently than a long long-haul aircraft (because its flight would take so much less time). Thunderf00t: SpaceX wants to be 10x of the whole aviation industry while using 10x more fuel, therefore emit 100x CO₂